The ongoing question of aerial drones

While parliamentarians on the Hill continue the ongoing debate over the F-35, not far away, military and civilian security officials were busy this week discussing the successes and challenges of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The question of what kind of UAVs Canada has, and what use they could be in the future isn’t a new one in Ottawa. Even back in February, then-associate minister of national defence Julian Fantino took some heat over the F-35 procurement problems at defence committee. New Democrat defence critic Matthew Kellway grilled Fantino over the possibility of a “plan B” – a possibly alternative course of action for the government to take should the fighter jet acquisition fall through.

“Today we hear that the Conservatives are going shopping again, this time for armed drones” Kellway said. “Is this plan B?“

Fantino was emphatic in his reply.

“As part of the Canada first defence strategy we will ensure that the Canadian armed forces is equipped with the tools it needs,” he said. “Any suggestion, as made by the member, that the Royal Canadian Air Force will be acquiring these systems is speculation at best.”

By August, that statement was in question, when the Ottawa Citizenrevealed that prior to the Libyan operation in 2011, “senior Canadian defence leaders pitched the idea of spending up to $600 million for armed drones” to take part in the conflict shortly before it ended. And even though that plan never panned out, “the military has now relaunched its program to purchase unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that can be outfitted with missiles and other bombs. According to DND documents the military intends to spend around $1 billion on the project.”

During the summer, the government also issued a request to industry to provide information on what kind of drones are now available, with emphasis on those that can be used in the North. On Thursday at the Unmanned Systems Conference in Ottawa, Air Force BGen D.W. Joyce didn’t provide much insight into the arming UAVs, but gave a rundown to conference-goers (made up of individuals from both military and industry) that so far, Canada’s experience in the field with drones has been positive, and the Forces are looking to expand on it.

Both for domestic use and international, BGen Joyce and his colleague Col. Alain Pelletier stressed the importance of the eyes in the sky over both Libya and Afghanistan, for surveillance purposes both prior and after aerial strikes from fighter jets (or, in worse cases, after an IED attack). They also promoted the success of both the Heron and ScanEagle UAVs in combat operations, along with the simple fact that having use of them at all brought Canada closer to its NATO partners with whom it is now capable of sharing knowledge and information – something that would have been impossible without them.

The North, however, remains a challenge, given the lack of satellite coverage and the harsh environment, the latter of which in particular is also an oft-cited failing of the F-35 in its current form. With the strategic importance of that region, some system has to be put in place, and Joyce suggested radio relays in lieu of satellites in the interim, despite the limitations.

Neither man, however, mentioned arming the drones.

On the Hill Wednesday, Kellway was again asking questions to the government about the F-35. Outside the House after question period, he told iPolitics that by the time Canada does acquire the F-35 (should it ultimately do so), he fears it will already be out of date.

“This F-35 is supposed to be the fifth generation fighter,” he said. “They’ve supposedly opened a sixth generation fighter office down in Washington and they’re looking at that next generation of technology already, with the notion that in fact around 2030 a new generation of fighter will be certainly under development, if not actually flying.”

This, Kellway argued, suggests that “given our purchase schedule at this point in time, that they will be spending an extraordinary amount of money for a short period of time before the technology makes them redundant as a weapon.”

Here, Kellway would probably find himself at odds with the government.

“I think somehow, this government, it’s incumbent on them to figure out how to procure military equipment in a world that depends so much on electronics and in which electronics and technology matures so rapidly,” he continued.

Broadly speaking, it’s unlikely he would find much argument from the government side on this.